Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)
Pradeep Amrutlal Runwal, Pune vs Assessee on 10 April, 2014 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs M. Ganapathi Mudaliar on 27 April, 1964

5.9 While making the addition of ₹ 5.10 crores as stated above, the CIT(A) relied on the following decisions of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC)], CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [(1969)72 ITR 807(SC], Himmatram Laxminarain vs. CIT [(1986)161 ITR 7(P&H)], CIT vs. Ganapathi Mudaliar [(1964)53 ITR 623(SC)] and CIT vs. Lacchman Dass Oswal [(1980)126 ITR 446(P&H)]. In this regard, the stand of the assessee has been that the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer are differentiable on facts and hence, the same are not applicable to the case of the assessee. In all the cases relied by the Assessing Officer, the fact that the assessee had actually earned income or received amounts by way of cash credits, unexplained investment etc. was not under dispute. The issue related to whether the receipts were received from genuine lenders or whether the investments or receipts were a part of the disclosed sources of income of the assessee. We find that in the present case, the issue in question itself is whether rough noting on loose paper 20 found in the course of search at the premises of third person could be assumed the income from the assessee as in the cases relied by the Assessing Officer. This fact has not been established in the case of assessee, therefore, the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer are clearly distinguishable on facts and hence, not applicable to the case of the assessee.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 72 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Lachhman Dass Oswal on 6 February, 1980

5.11 The CIT(A) in para 2.5 has placed reliance upon ITAT, Pune decision in the case of Dhanvarsha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. [102 ITD 375]. In the said case, the assessee was searched and documents were found indicating on money received by the assessee. It was held that the document was found with the assessee and therefore, the A.O. was justified in making the addition. Even in this case, the issue of no addition can be made on the basis of documents found with third party was not raised.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sumati Dayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 28 March, 1995

5.9 While making the addition of ₹ 5.10 crores as stated above, the CIT(A) relied on the following decisions of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC)], CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [(1969)72 ITR 807(SC], Himmatram Laxminarain vs. CIT [(1986)161 ITR 7(P&H)], CIT vs. Ganapathi Mudaliar [(1964)53 ITR 623(SC)] and CIT vs. Lacchman Dass Oswal [(1980)126 ITR 446(P&H)]. In this regard, the stand of the assessee has been that the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer are differentiable on facts and hence, the same are not applicable to the case of the assessee. In all the cases relied by the Assessing Officer, the fact that the assessee had actually earned income or received amounts by way of cash credits, unexplained investment etc. was not under dispute. The issue related to whether the receipts were received from genuine lenders or whether the investments or receipts were a part of the disclosed sources of income of the assessee. We find that in the present case, the issue in question itself is whether rough noting on loose paper 20 found in the course of search at the premises of third person could be assumed the income from the assessee as in the cases relied by the Assessing Officer. This fact has not been established in the case of assessee, therefore, the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer are clearly distinguishable on facts and hence, not applicable to the case of the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1298 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Durga Prasad More on 26 August, 1971

5.9 While making the addition of ₹ 5.10 crores as stated above, the CIT(A) relied on the following decisions of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC)], CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [(1969)72 ITR 807(SC], Himmatram Laxminarain vs. CIT [(1986)161 ITR 7(P&H)], CIT vs. Ganapathi Mudaliar [(1964)53 ITR 623(SC)] and CIT vs. Lacchman Dass Oswal [(1980)126 ITR 446(P&H)]. In this regard, the stand of the assessee has been that the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer are differentiable on facts and hence, the same are not applicable to the case of the assessee. In all the cases relied by the Assessing Officer, the fact that the assessee had actually earned income or received amounts by way of cash credits, unexplained investment etc. was not under dispute. The issue related to whether the receipts were received from genuine lenders or whether the investments or receipts were a part of the disclosed sources of income of the assessee. We find that in the present case, the issue in question itself is whether rough noting on loose paper 20 found in the course of search at the premises of third person could be assumed the income from the assessee as in the cases relied by the Assessing Officer. This fact has not been established in the case of assessee, therefore, the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer are clearly distinguishable on facts and hence, not applicable to the case of the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 1107 - Full Document

Himmatram Laxminarain vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 August, 1985

5.9 While making the addition of ₹ 5.10 crores as stated above, the CIT(A) relied on the following decisions of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC)], CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [(1969)72 ITR 807(SC], Himmatram Laxminarain vs. CIT [(1986)161 ITR 7(P&H)], CIT vs. Ganapathi Mudaliar [(1964)53 ITR 623(SC)] and CIT vs. Lacchman Dass Oswal [(1980)126 ITR 446(P&H)]. In this regard, the stand of the assessee has been that the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer are differentiable on facts and hence, the same are not applicable to the case of the assessee. In all the cases relied by the Assessing Officer, the fact that the assessee had actually earned income or received amounts by way of cash credits, unexplained investment etc. was not under dispute. The issue related to whether the receipts were received from genuine lenders or whether the investments or receipts were a part of the disclosed sources of income of the assessee. We find that in the present case, the issue in question itself is whether rough noting on loose paper 20 found in the course of search at the premises of third person could be assumed the income from the assessee as in the cases relied by the Assessing Officer. This fact has not been established in the case of assessee, therefore, the case laws relied by the Assessing Officer are clearly distinguishable on facts and hence, not applicable to the case of the assessee.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next